Entitlement to employment benefit under a Memorandum of Understanding based on land acquisition and Khatedar status.

JUDGMENT

Vinit Kumar Mathur, J. - The case is listed in the 'Orders' category, however, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition itself is taken up for hearing and decided today.

2. Briefly, the facts giving rise to the writ petition are that for establishment of a Thermal Power Project in Rajasthan by the respondent nos. 3 and 4, the land acquisition proceedings were undertaken in village Barsinghsar, District Bikaner and the acquisition of 10,953 Bighas of land was made. After the land acquisition proceedings, the award was passed and all those persons including the petitioner whose lands were acquired, were granted compensation. In the same process, a Memorandum of Understanding/Agreement was also entered between the representatives of the persons whose lands were acquired, the Officers of the respondent nos. 3 and 4 and State officials. As per Para 9 of this MOU/Agreement, it was decided that at least one member of the family from each Khata of the land will be provided employment with respondent nos. 3 and 4. The petitioner being one of the Khatedars was entitled for one person to be employed from his family. The petitioner being the Khatedar of Khasra No. 85 was awarded the compensation as his name reflects in the Revenue Record as Khatedar Tenant of Khasra No. 85. The petitioner approached the competent authorities of the State Government and the Sub Divisional Officer, Bikaner while recommending his case to the District Collector, Bikaner mentioned that the petitioner is holding a separate Khata and is entitled for being considered for grant of employment of one member of his family. While recommending the case of the petitioner, the learned SDO mentioned that it is not possible to increase the number of Khatas. On the same lines, vide letter dated 03.10.2012, the District Collector had written to the respondent no. 4 for considering the case of the petitioner for grant of employment to one member of his family. In these circumstances, when the petitioner was not granted employment by the respondent nos. 3 and 4, the present writ petition has been filed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is an admitted position that the petitioner has 51 Bighas of land in Khasra No. 85 for which a separate award was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer. He further submits that as per the Revenue Records also, the petitioner was shown as Khatedari Tenant of Khasra No. 85. He submits that since there is a Memorandum of Understanding between the parties for extending the benefit of employment to at least one person from family of one Khatedar but the petitioner is being denied the benefit of the same illegally and arbitrarily. He, therefore, prays that the respondents may be directed to consider the case of the petitioner along with the other similarly situated persons who have been extended the benefit of Para 9 of the Memorandum of Understanding entered into between the parties and placed on record as Annexure-R3/1.

4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the State submits that the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner are in conformity with the Revenue Records and they have already taken up the case of the petitioner with the respondent nos. 3 and 4 for extending the benefit of grant of employment to one person from the family as a Khatedar Tenant of the land which was acquired in this case.

5. Mr. Vineet Jain, learned Senior counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 3 and 4 submits that the writ petition preferred by the petitioner is an afterthought as the petitioner appeared with the Co-Khatedar in the selection process and having failed there, had just chosen to file this writ petition for grant of relief in this case. He further submits that since the petitioner failed to secure the requisite marks for getting selected in the selection process along with the Co-Khatedar, he has preferred this writ petition. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition may be dismissed w